Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Gordon Brown went to a state comprehensive. And in one fell swoop your massive, unfair generalisations are proved incorrect.
    If you read the rest of the post carefully, you'll see that I was commenting on a general rule. :yep:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Gordon Brown went to a state comprehensive. And in one fell swoop your massive, unfair generalisations are proved incorrect.
    If you read the rest of the post carefully, you'll see that I was commenting on a general rule. :yep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    This is simply ignoring the problem I set you. What exactly about the child born to rich parents legitimates their superior education (facilitated by the state)? Why should the state allow certain schools to cater to the privileged? Why should the state allow people to buy grades for their children, buy jobs for their children, buy massive opportunities for their children?
    Like I said, you're inappropriately trying to put the burden of justification on the people who are spending their own money as they see fit. They earned the money, so what business of yours is it how they spend it? You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that it's the state's business to interfere with people who want to freely associate.

    The other problem I have is with your whole attitude that education is really just a tool for social engineering, something with which we can and should punish the rich. It reminds me of the story of a capitalist and a communist who see a luxury apartment - the communist says "No one should live like this." The capitalist says "Everyone should live like this." If you actually cared about making the worst off people in society better off, you'd support something like a voucher system so that everyone can have access to the quality of private education. But no, you, like a lot of egalitarians, would rather drag everyone down to the same level rather than let anyone move up.

    Sure rich parents should be allowed to buy better material goods for their children, but why should they be allowed to buy priviledges within the structure of the state's institutions?
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but private schools are by definition not 'the state's institutions.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Like I said, you're inappropriately trying to put the burden of justification on the people who are spending their own money as they see fit. They earned the money, so what business of yours is it how they spend it? You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that it's the state's business to interfere with people who want to freely associate.
    Sorry, but it is other people's business what someone spends their money on, especially if they think that this spending is harmful. I'd be a little peeved, for example, if someone opened an industrial waste disposal complex next to my back garden.

    The other problem I have is with your whole attitude that education is really just a tool for social engineering, something with which we can and should punish the rich.
    bolded bit =alarmist fallacy

    It reminds me of the story of a capitalist and a communist who see a luxury apartment - the communist says "No one should live like this." The capitalist says "Everyone should live like this."
    Again, silly little fallacy.

    If you actually cared about making the worst off people in society better off, you'd support something like a voucher system so that everyone can have access to the quality of private education. But no, you, like a lot of egalitarians, would rather drag everyone down to the same level rather than let anyone move up.
    Most people who are opposed to private education are generally supportive of a massive increase of spending on state education, at least to the level per head of private schools currently.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Sorry, but it is other people's business what someone spends their money on, especially if they think that this spending is harmful. I'd be a little peeved, for example, if someone opened an industrial waste disposal complex next to my back garden.
    And educating children is directly analogous to opening an industrial waste disposal complex, is it? I actually agree that if someone's action harms someone else's person or property, they should be liable for damages. But educating a child is in no way harming someone else's person or property.

    bolded bit =alarmist fallacy
    If infringing on freedom of association by stopping people from sending their kids to schools that would happily accept them in order to impose some vision of 'equality' on society by denying said kids a good education isn't social engineering, I don't have a clue what is. Note you haven't given any particular argument for why it isn't social engineering, just a throwaway comment.

    Again, silly little fallacy.
    I think it sums up the perversities of egalitarian thinking quite nicely, actually.

    Most people who are opposed to private education are generally supportive of a massive-+ increase of spending on state education, at least to the level per head of private schools currently.
    Well, it arguably is at the same level of spending per head (see http://timworstall.com/2008/09/27/pr...ucation-costs/ among other links). Given that spending on education has virtually doubled under Labour, what makes you think throwing more money away would make a difference? Compare this to the sensible solution of letting parents actually choose the school that they think would best fit their child - are you seriously telling me that the children in the worst off state schools in the country are better off than they would be under a voucher scheme where schools actually competed for their business?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot believe that people actually see sense in the positive discrimination policy.
    Suppose a child is from a bad state school and one is from a the best state school in the country. Then should oxbridge discriminate against the second one? NO. Oxbridge are there to nurture the best talent, no matter where it is produced. If most states schools do not stretch their students enough, then most private schools will. At the end of the day, most private schooled children will be better suited to an Oxbridge education than state schooled students.

    It may be unfortunate that entry into private education is largely dependent on wealth, but clearly students who go to these institutions, and their parents, are not to blame. Blame the game, not the player. The 'game' can be made fairer if grammar schools are reinstated and if they give an education on par with private schools, but on the state's pay. Alternatively, more students should apply for bursary places at top private schools. Both these options will lead to the best minds being in the best schools (i.e. brilliant grammar schools o rprivate schools) and then the best minds from the best schools proceeding to the best unis.

    But clearly it is too costly and time consuming to make sure the grammar schools pull up their socks and that all the best students are diverted to these institutions. Its much quicker and cheaper (but wronger) to tell Oxbridge to discriminate against privately educated students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although i came from a crapy state school i got reasonable GCSE's 1A 3B's 6C's and now at A2 doing well so you can achieve even if you come from a working class background just less likely.

    By crappy i mean 29% pass rate whereas if you look at grammer schools they get something like a 98-99% pass rate.

    However in the future if i ever get into a well paid job (i would hope so) and decide to have children then i would obviously want the best for them so to say i wouldn't send them to private school if the state alternative was still way bellow standards then who wouldn't? i think it would be a bit hypocritical for me to say i wouldn't even if i come from a relatively working class family so i beleive people should be able to spend there money how they want.

    It just annoys me how arrogant some middle class people can be alot of them recieved there wealth through hand downs and priveldge so don't go around thinking your better than us, your not better you just had better opportunities.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BMJ)
    Although i came from a crapy state school i got reasonable GCSE's 1A 3B's 6C's and now at A2 doing well so you can achieve even if you come from a working class background just less likely.

    By crappy i mean 29% pass rate whereas if you look at grammer schools they get something like a 98-99% pass rate.

    However in the future if i ever get into a well paid job (i would hope so) and decide to have children then i would obviously want the best for them so to say i wouldn't send them to private school if the state alternative was still way bellow standards then who wouldn't? i think it would be a bit hypocritical for me to say i wouldn't even if i come from a relatively working class family so i beleive people should be able to spend there money how they want.

    It just annoys me how arrogant some middle class people can be alot of them recieved there wealth through hand downs and priveldge so don't go around thinking your better than us, your not better you just had better opportunities.
    "a lot of them".
    ********.
    "hardly any of them".
    Better.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xobile)
    Firstly, private schools are much better than state schools. Go from a state school to a private school and you will know how.

    Secondly, the best private schools, certainly those that actually provide a higher quality education than state schools, take students in on the basis of merit. The charity status they get is because they are happy to pay up to 100% of a child's fees if he has talent. My school, a private school, has hundreds of students on scholarship and a considerable number on 100% scholarships. These students are being given an excellent education, not because their parents are rich, but because they deserve it.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xobile)
    Who here thinks that private education is a way for the wealthy to buy privilege for their children?

    If you think so, do you think it is wrong for the wealthy to do this?

    Around 7 percent of school pupils are privately educated. Around 40 percent of Oxbridgers are from private schools.

    Do you think the government should make universities follow a 'positive discriminatory' policy that is essentially biased against private school pupils?
    This is because comprehensives are crap. When they had grammar schools it was nearly 60% of Oxbridge intake was from a state school, and you know what - that was an increasing figure. The reason Oxbridge takes private school people is, I feel that the style of education at Private schools is more suitable for what is supposed to be an academically rigorous degree. The problem is the state schools not Oxbridge or the private schools
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BMJ)
    Although i came from a crapy state school i got reasonable GCSE's 1A 3B's 6C's and now at A2 doing well so you can achieve even if you come from a working class background just less likely.

    By crappy i mean 29% pass rate whereas if you look at grammer schools they get something like a 98-99% pass rate.

    However in the future if i ever get into a well paid job (i would hope so) and decide to have children then i would obviously want the best for them so to say i wouldn't send them to private school if the state alternative was still way bellow standards then who wouldn't? i think it would be a bit hypocritical for me to say i wouldn't even if i come from a relatively working class family so i beleive people should be able to spend there money how they want.

    It just annoys me how arrogant some middle class people can be alot of them recieved there wealth through hand downs and priveldge so don't go around thinking your better than us, your not better you just had better opportunities.
    If you're truly intent on signposting your successes despite a state comprehensive education so that others might be inspired, would it really be excessive to proofread your post?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotallyJustMe)
    This.
    I am just wondering how you identify children who do not deserve an excellent education
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What has to be said about most private schools is that they are run very similarly to grammar schools, so they have the same kind of ethos, so the education you get from them is usually equal to state grammar schools. I went to a private school, it's not that my parents are rich but there are no good schools in my area which are state run, so having come from a grammar himself I think my dad wanted something similar to me. I'm at Sheffield university now and you don't come across many privately educated people, which may seem surprising but a lot of people were from grammar schools, so I think that's just as telling.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if this has been posted, but didn't the government actually tell Oxbridge to admit 75% of state school children? Its not enforced though, so it doesn't work.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotallyJustMe)
    This.
    :congrats: way to revive a 4 year old thread
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.